We cannot deduce the existence of God

[Bahman]

Citing a specious formula and stating that the existence of God cannot be deduced is fallacious in the face of the fact that Innumerable, credible people down through the ages have done so thus disproving the title contention.

If the argument that one cannot deduce the existence of God is to be taken as a serious contention, then a point by point discussion of Plato, Aristotle, and the many others who have done so must be presented.

It is clear that there is a need on your part to do additional Scholarship on the subject in order to make your case against them.

I would suggest a study of sound epistemology (See link above) would be a good starting point to establish a foundation prior to starting your study of Plato and Aristotle.

All I am saying is that if (A) is correct then we shouldn’t bother about (B) since it is incorrect. Would you like to open a line of argument on (A)? I will open a separate thread for each proof and I hope I find you there.

 

[RGCheek]

Point 5) “We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience” is still wrong.

How does one experience a googleplex?

 

[Bahman]

Point 5) “We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience” is still wrong.

How does one experience a googleplex?

We deduce googleplex’s existences. Whether they are real or not is subject to debate.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is very correct. It is necessary if you accept the next argument.

This is what I quote and I am 100% sure about it: *“Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist in consciousness.” *

Hence previous argument is correct.

Lets see if we could agree on my argument, two comments before, because that is the core argument.

It makes sense. Let me help you to visualize it. Consider a triangle with the left node as past, right node as future, and top node as awareness of past. I can draw a figure if you wish. As you see there is no awareness of past at the moment where past exist, absence of experience, and there is nothing exist at the moment of experience so called now.

It does. What are talking about experiencing God. Please read previous comment.

1. I disagree, please read previous comments
2. Good
3. Good
4. Yes it can. In simple word, the moment of experience is the absence of existence. God is pure existence hence it cannot be absent, hence it cannot be experienced.
5. Good
6. You mean (1) and (4)? But, I answered them.

Why? We are just left with (1) and (4) only, hence the argument is correct if I can convince you that (1) and (4) are correct.

You are just regurgitating your original argument. My previous post explains why it is invalid. So I stand pat. As I have said before, you just keep repeating the same ideas over and over. But it won’t do. Endless repetition does not make the argument any more successful. If you wanted to write a book containing all your ideas of the past two years here, I think you would find few people to read it.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

You are just regurgitating your original argument. My previous post explains why it is invalid. So I stand pat. As I have said before, you just keep repeating the same ideas over and over. But it won’t do. Endless repetition does not make the argument any more successful. If you wanted to write a book containing all your ideas of the past two years here, I think you would find few people to read it.

Linus2nd

And you don’t put an effort to try to understand.

 

[davidv]

And you don’t put an effort to try to understand.

That is a value judgment for which you have insufficient data.

Do you understand the objections raised against your proposals?

 

[Bahman]

That is a value judgment for which you have insufficient data.

Do you understand the objections raised against your proposals?

Yeah, there is an counterargument for any argument. What I need is a solid counterargument so I can build on! Otherwise, we are not going anywhere.

 

[davidv]

Yeah, there is an counterargument for any argument. What I need is a solid counterargument so I can build on! Otherwise, we are not going anywhere.

No, you are expected to address the objections to your argument.

I expect that unless this is done, every counterargument will be dismissed without reason.

 

[Bahman]

No, you are expected to address the objections to your argument.

I expect that unless this is done, every counterargument will be dismissed without reason.

Where are those objections/counterarguments? Consider the case of Linus2nd.

 

[davidv]

Where are those objections/counterarguments?

Have you not been reading the responses to you in this thread?

Consider the case of Linus2nd.

Why?

 

[Bahman]

Have you not been reading the responses to you in this thread?

Why?

Yes, very carefully. I don’t know why people give up with me.

 

[davidv]

Yes, very carefully. I don’t know why people give up with me.

I know part of the reason the people give up. The continued use of illogic by you is very frustrating.

Part of the reason I have continued to post is to make sure that the errors you propose are not left unchallenged and that this may be of a help to the lurkers on this thread.

 

[Bahman]

I know part of the reason the people give up. The continued use of illogic by you is very frustrating.

Part of the reason I have continued to post is to make sure that the errors you propose are not left unchallenged and that this may be of a help to the lurkers on this thread.

Thank you. :extrahappy:

 

[RGCheek]

We deduce googleplex’s existences. Whether they are real or not is subject to debate.

Who is debating if a Googleplex is real?

Of course it is real! Just as pi and sine are real.

lol

 

[RGCheek]

I know part of the reason the people give up. The continued use of illogic by you is very frustrating.

Part of the reason I have continued to post is to make sure that the errors you propose are not left unchallenged and that this may be of a help to the lurkers on this thread.

Providing valid information for lurkers is the only genuine purpose to post on message boards if one is trying to persuade anyone.

Most of those who post already have their minds set and so you don’t beat that drum for the drums benefit.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And you don’t put an effort to try to understand.

You are the one who isn’t putting the effort in. All you do is post 24 hours a day. How do you ever have time to think about anything? You need to reevaluate your argument.

Linus2nd

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t know why people give up with me.
Ignatius;12643971:

Determining whether something is knowable by deductive reasoning (such as the Title referenced contention) requires the use of sound epistemological principles and practices. It seems that perhaps the OP would benefit by gaining some grounding in the study of how knowledge is acquired and how sound epistemology is performed. Especially not section 2.3 on Internal vs External knowledge and the property of Luminosity

obtained by introspection and section 4.4 **Reason **which explains how can be determined and justified solely by the use of reason.

Here is a brief synopses on determining what is reliably knowable:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God

Ignatius:

Citing a specious formula and stating that the existence of God cannot be deduced is fallacious in the face of the fact that Innumerable, credible people down through the ages have done so thus disproving the title contention.

If the argument that one cannot deduce the existence of God is to be taken as a serious contention, then a point by point discussion of Plato, Aristotle, and the many others who have done so must be presented.

It is clear that there is a need on your part to do additional Scholarship on the subject in order to make your case against them.

I would suggest a study of sound epistemology (See link above) would be a good starting point to establish a foundation prior to starting your study of Plato and Aristotle.

Stating that you have a formula that shows you cannot deduce the existence of God is like stating that you have a formula to show that you cannot put an object in orbit around the earth.
It has already been done, multiple times by many very accomplished people; therefore the logical formula that you propose is unsound!

It is not good reasoning to state that something cannot be done that has already been done. Do you really not see the error in that thinking?

 

[Bahman]

Stating that you have a formula that shows you cannot deduce the existence of God is like stating that you have a formula to show that you cannot put an object in orbit around the earth.
It has already been done, multiple times by many very accomplished people; therefore the logical formula that you propose is unsound!

It is not good reasoning to state that something cannot be done that has already been done. Do you really not see the error in that thinking?

I opened four threads for Thomas’s proofs of God existence. I would be happy to see you there.

 

[Ignatius]

. . . . proofs of God existence.
Bahman;12649858:

I don’t know why people give up with me.
Ignatius;12643971:

Determining whether something is knowable by deductive reasoning (such as the Title referenced contention) requires the use of sound epistemological principles and practices. It seems that perhaps the OP would benefit by gaining some grounding in the study of how knowledge is acquired and how sound epistemology is performed. Especially not section 2.3 on Internal vs External knowledge and the property of Luminosity obtained by introspection and section 4.4 Reason which explains how it can be determined and justified solely by the use of reason.

Here is a brief synopses on determining what is reliably knowable:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God
Ignatius;12655677:

Stating that you have a formula that shows you cannot deduce the existence of God is like stating that you have a formula to show that you cannot put an object in orbit around the earth.
It has already been done, multiple times by many very accomplished people; therefore the logical formula that you propose is unsound!

It is not good reasoning to state that something cannot be done that has already been done. Do you really not see the error in that thinking?

Actually, I’m not arguing about the existence of God (that’s been done), what I’m interested in is the subject issue of this thread i.e. the contention that “A) We cannot deduce the existence of God”. The real issue is the question of how knowledge is acquired, Internal vs External knowledge and the property of Luminosity obtained by introspection and how it can be determined solely by the use of reason. This is an interesting subject.

But, simply putting forth a formula that shows you cannot deduce the existence of God is like stating that you have a formula to show that you cannot put an object in orbit around the earth. It has already been done, multiple times by accomplished people; Including Aristotle, Plato, etc. therefore the logical formula that you propose is unsound!

I am addressing the Title contention when I point out that It is not good reasoning to state that something cannot be done that has already been done.

So, my question is, and I ask that you please answer this direct question, to wit: Do you not see the how unsound that approach is?

(Here is a brief synopses on the epistemology of determining what is reliably knowable: plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/)

 

[Bahman]

Actually, I’m interested in the subject issue of this thread i.e. “A) We cannot deduce the existence of God”.

Good. I am open to discuss my argument with you. But first I need your objections.

Again, stating that you have a formula that shows you cannot deduce the existence of God is like stating that you have a formula to show that you cannot put an object in orbit around the earth. It has already been done, multiple times by accomplished people; Including Aristotle, Plato, etc. therefore the logical formula that you propose is unsound!

How my logical formula could be unsound and their could be sound. One is wrong. It could be them, no matter what title they carry.

I am addressing the Title contention when I point out that It is not good reasoning to state that something cannot be done that has already been done.

Truth is state of belief on something, for example a proof, our state of beliefs however is not absolutely true.

So, my question is, and I ask that you please answer this direct question, to wit: Do you not see the how unsound that approach is?

I don’t think if my approach is unsound. There is no end for human ignorance so I keep my reservation to give it a try.

(Here is a brief synopses on the epistemology of determining what is reliably knowable: plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/)

Thanks for the link. I will look at it shortly.